1. “We need to end the Abortion Holocaust; and as president, I will enforce the 5th and 14th amendments if individual states fail to do so. We can’t ‘make America great again’ as long as we allow the most innocent among us to be murdered in cold blood with the full consent and funding of our government. The God-given right to life is the most fundamental right human beings possess; and as president, I will do everything in my power to restore the Rule of Law and the Right to Life for ALL innocent human persons.”

2. “The Supreme Court isn’t the Supreme Being, and court opinions aren’t law. And as president, I will not enforce any immoral, illegal and unconstitutional court opinion such as Roe, Windsor, and Obergefell. Judicial Supremacy, the belief that Rule of Judges=Rule of Law and that the president, Congress, and every individual state must always obey every Supreme Court opinion the very moment one is issued, is a toxic liberal lie that we must expose and extinguish; and as president, I will take the lead in doing so!”

3. “God defined, ordained, and instituted marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman; and the natural human family is the foundation for all healthy, virtuous and prosperous societies. America can’t be great unless she is good. And that begins with the preservation of the family. As president, I will call for Congress to pass a Constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman in accordance with God’s definition–and will call for all state governors to cease from (illegally) authorizing the issuance of marriage licences to same-sex couples, since Obergefell isn’t law and since any law (or court opinion) contrary to God’s Law is no law at all (legally null and void).”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

But what he flagrantly failed to mention was that the immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional Obergefell opinion (that there is a Constitutional right to so-called same-sex marriage) is not “the law of the land” and doesn’t trump or invalidate in any way the Texas marriage statutes, Texas Constitution, and God’s Immutable and Infallible Word (which ALL define marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman).

Allowing marriage licenses to be illegally altered and issued to same-sex couples in Texas is not a “victory for religious liberty.” It’s a massive defeat for the Constitutional Rule of Law and what remains of our Republican form of Civil Government.

If Americans truly want to restore Constitutional Checks and Balances and the Rule of Law, we must demolish the toxic liberal lie of Judicial Supremacy (that Rule of Judges equal the Rule of Law). And that has the best chance of occurring at the state level.

Here is what Governor Abbott should have said:

The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being. As governor I have a solemn obligation to enforce the laws and statutes of the state of Texas in obedience to the Texas and U.S. Constitutions. The marriage statutes in Texas and our Constitution limit marriage to one man and one woman in accordance with God’s Word and can never be amended or altered in any way.

Therefore, I will not enforce the immoral and unconstitutional Obergefell opinion and will not authorize any alterations to or issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples in Texas. This is not as much an issue of religious liberty as it is an issue of the preservation of the Rule of Law. And here in Texas, Constitutional oaths and the Rule of Law still matter and I will not violate my oath.

And in addition to not authorizing the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples in Texas, I will also be shutting down all Planned Parenthood Abortuaries in Texas since killing pre-born babies blatantly violates the 5th and 14th amendments which both guarantee that all innocent human persons not be deprived of due process and equal protection of the laws. Neither Roe nor Obergefell are the “law of the land”; and here in Texas, I as governor will protect marriage and life and reject them both as the legal nullities they are. Period!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

If Kim Davis had authorized the issuance of marriage licences to same-sex couples in Kentucky, she would have violated:

1. Kentucky statutory law, which limits marriage to one man and one woman. The penalty for a magistrate marrying two people of the same-sex is a $500-$1000 fine and removal from office!

2. The Kentucky Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, which passed in 2004 with 75% of the vote. It reads: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.”

3. Our Founding National Charter and Organic Law, the Declaration and Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, since so called same-sex marriage violates the “laws of nature and nature’s God.”

4. God’s Immutable, Infallible, Inerrant and Authoritative Word which defines marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman which can never be redefined by any majority of jurists, voters or legislators.

For anyone to believe Kim is guilty, one must believe an immoral and totally unconstitutional court opinion trumps Kentucky law, the Kentucky Constitution, the U.S. Constitution and Declaration, and the Bible.

Many self-described conservatives are claiming that Kentucky marriage clerk Kim Davis should either “follow the law” and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or “find another job” since, of course, the Obergefell opinion that there is a supposed Constitutional right to so-called “same-sex marriage” is now the “law of the land.” (At least according to the Bush appointee federal judge who threw Kim Davis in jail for not agreeing to violate her oath and also according to all the Judicial Supremacist blond bimbos and talking heads over at Faux News)

Jefferson, Hamilton, and Lincoln, however, would beg to differ (by their own words below) with the toxic liberal lie that Supreme Court (SC) opinions immediately and without exception “invalidate” Constitutionally enacted laws and statutes.

The SC is not King, and their opinions aren’t the “law of the land” the very moment they are issued.

We have flouted the grave warnings of the likes of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. …The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

Not even Hamilton imagined that the right to opine is a power to rule. Courts, he pointed out, have intentionally been given no means of enforcing their opinions — making it obvious that the executive and legislative branches are not compelled to “obey” false or even dubious opinions. Therefore, he wrote:

“…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. … [T]he judiciary … has no influence over either the sword or purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL…”

Lincoln acknowledged that court opinions are binding on the specific parties named and “entitled to very high respect and consideration (by) other departments of the government.” But like the Founding Fathers, he utterly rejected the claim that judges’ opinions are the law of the land:

“..if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Americans must reject the Orwellian Lie that is cancelling self-government in the United States. Lincoln said on the battlefield at Gettysburg:

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether … any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure… It is for us the living…to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us… we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The Supreme Court issues administrative opinions that the other two superior branches (legislative and executive) should strongly consider. But any change in the laws must be made via the Constitutionally proscribed process (by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive).

Judicial opinions are only legally binding on the parties in the case being heard insofar as they comply with the Constitution.

Any law or court opinion contrary to the Constitution is legally null and void on its face and must be ignored and rejected by every civil magistrate at every level and branch of government.

The problem is that many Americans have been brainwashed to believe the lie that COTUS and POTUS must always obey SCOTUS no matter how immoral, illegal and unconstitutional their opinions may be.

The truth is that COTUS and POTUS and every civil magistrate at every level and branch of government has a moral and Constitutional duty (per the oath they swear) to ignore/reject ALL anti-Constitutional court opinions (such as Obergefell, for example).

The Supreme Court is no more “supreme” over the other 2 branches or the people than the Federal Reserve or Federal Express is part of the Federal Government. The Framers intentionally designed the Judiciary to be “the weakest of the 3 branches” for a reason. (See Federalist #78 for more.)

The Democrat governor of Kentucky is blatantly violating his oath by allowing marriage licenses to be issued (and illegally altered) to same sex couples since the marriage statutes in Kentucky have never been altered or amended in any way and still limit marriage to one man and one woman.

And every single marriage licence that has been issued to a same-sex couple in Kentucky is legally null and void.

He is the one who should be in jail.

Not Kim Davis, who has a far superior understanding of the oath of office, the rule of law, our Constitutional Republican form of government and God’s Immutable Word than 99.9% of our elected representatives. (including virtually every GOP presidential candidate)

All unconstitutional judicial opinions must be ignored and rejected by every civil magistrate at every level and branch of government.

Period!

Roe should have been. Lawrence should have been. Dred Scott should have been. And Obergefell should be ignored and rejected by every governor of every sovereign state in the union for the immoral and unconstitutional abomination it is.

That is how our Representative Republican form of government was originally designed to work.

Ever hear of the term “checks and balances?”

Sadly, all 50 governors are violating their oaths by treating a toothless and totally immoral opinion as if it were the “law of the land” by issuing marriage licences to same sex couples despite the fact the SC can’t make, amend or “overturn” laws–and in spite of the fact that in virtually every state in the Union, the Constitutionally enacted marriage statutes still define marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman AND in spite of the fact that no majority of jurists, legislators or voters possesses the authority to re-define what God Almighty Himself has once and for all explicitly ordained, defined, and established (i.e., that marriage is the EXCLUSIVE union of one man and one woman!)

Including the state of Kentucky, where the marriage statute that limits marriage as the union of one man and one woman is still the “law of the land!”

“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”–Abraham Lincoln